My Lords, I shall speak to our two amendments grouped with Amendment No. 49. Our Amendment No. 50 is mainly a probing amendment, in that it deals with electronic communication apparatus. The Minister clarified that such apparatus,"““for the purposes of an electronic communications code network””,"
means basically a phone mast. There is a great deal of opposition to such things, especially in areas of natural beauty. Does the exemption from the requirement to obtain national authority permission to build them on common land mean that they can circumvent the planning system?
On our Amendment No. 52, we are back on the question of quarrying. The methods used in quarrying differ according to conditions, quantities and so on. The controls on noise and nuisance also vary from place to place and time to time. Some of our common land is very beautiful and attracts tourists, holidaymakers and others whose spending is important to the rural community. Where extraction has not begun, the national authority—if it is even-handed—should wish to ensure that the methods are appropriate to the location. Obviously if a site is well under way and the operating conditions are understood by all, there is no imperative to start changing things and probably bump up the cost. However, if the work has commenced in only the past few months or not yet at all, the national authority should be able to call the plans in.
I shall deal with the government amendments. It is interesting to hear what the noble Lord has to say on the exercise of powers in the New Forest; we are all very much in awe of the venerable association of Verderers of the New Forest and its ways. This is the only point at which the Bill will affect the New Forest. As the association has not written to the rest of us with complaints, I presume that the Government have got it just about the way that the association wants it. There was a bit of a belt-and-braces situation in government Amendment No. 55, and it is a little difficult to see anyone arguing that it would affect the requirement to get other people’s consent. The meaning is perfectly plain when ““arising”” is removed.
Commons Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Duke of Montrose
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 30 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Commons Bill [HL] 2005-06.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c261-2 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:47:55 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_282059
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_282059
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_282059